Was the kid perving, is that the issue? Beating is a little harsh, sure, but I sort of get it if he was using the camera on the beach for the reason I'd assume a 14 year old boy would be using a camera on a beach.

Shuck
—
2014-06-10T23:28:59Z —
#3

That was obviously the assumption made, true or not. But, let's face it, it was probably true. This is also not the first time I've read about teen boys videoing women at the beach via a drone. The previous instance involved only an angry telling off, however.We can have our fantasies about instant Amazon deliveries, but this is the real future of drones - teenage boys (and their emotional equivalents) violating women's privacy - at the beach, in their back-yards, in their bedrooms... not to mention surveillance via police drones (which, in many cases would amount to the same thing, based on stories I've heard about how police helicopters get used).

solstone
—
2014-06-10T23:29:23Z —
#4

It is probably what she thought he was doing. It may or may not have been what he was doing. Either way, she is in the wrong. Both because assaulting someone immediately makes you the perp in the situation, and because the beach is a public beach. Don't want to be photographed, don't go onto a public beach.

Oh, and he's 17 (according to the article, Mark seems to have 14 as a typo) and says he has been flying drones since he was 9. He says he was getting landscape footage from 50 feet up. In the video she clearly initiates the assault. He doesn't even retaliate. He keeps asking her to stop, and calls for someone to help or to call the police.

So yeah. She is in the wrong. He had every right to be doing what he was doing, no matter what she thought and now she is probably facing felony assault charges for her aggressive ignorance...

semiotix
—
2014-06-10T23:31:44Z —
#5

Yyyyyeah, setting aside the question of whether it's possible to "perve" on people wearing bathing suits at a beach, vigilante fist justice is not necessarily the optimal solution here.

As for the notion that he must have been doing it for sexual gratification because he was a 14-year-old boy, well, I was one once, and I was a horny little shit if I do say so myself. But I also would have thought a remote control flying machine you didn't need to be a rich kid with the model-airplane equivalent of a year in flight school to operate was the COOLEST THING EVER, even cooler than swimsuit-clad boobs I could just look at with my own eyes anyway.

Y'all need to start hanging out with a better class of 14-year-old.

EDIT: Apparently he's 17, not 14, but either way.

Punchcard
—
2014-06-10T23:31:48Z —
#6

violating women's privacy - at the beach, in their back-yards, in their bedrooms...

One of those places differs dramatically on the point of "expected privacy". I'll give you a hint. It is at the beach.

bcsizemo
—
2014-06-10T23:33:34Z —
#7

And by "drone" you mean quadcopter right?

Shuck
—
2014-06-10T23:44:37Z —
#8

Obviously, yes, but although photographing people at the beach without their permission may be legal - although depending on specific details it may, in fact, not be - it's still a violation. And my point is that this is just the trivial beginning of something serious. The real violations are going to happen (if they aren't already) now that the tech is cheap and in use.

Shane_Simmons
—
2014-06-10T23:48:31Z —
#10

OK, instead of making a bunch of assumptions, let's go to the original source, where he's got a Picture-in-Picture of him being confronted by her, vs. alleged footage from the quadcopter.

Lots of gross victim-blaming in the comments, just so you know, way beyond what this comment thread has done so far.

If that truly is the footage from that flight...does it matter? She assaulted a minor because she thought he was taking pictures of girls. Before we go any further, let's repeat that: she assaulted a minor because she thought he was taking creepshots. She had no proof other than that he was flying a quadcopter at the beach. She might be right, but that doesn't change the fact that she didn't know before she started assaulting him.

And she thought the appropriate response to taking creepshots was to "break your fuckin' nose".

What the hell?

And I mean...holy hell, you don't need a quadcopter to creep on girls on a beach.

She started out doing something close to the right thing, which was to call authorities. But...wow. She couldn't just say, "Show me the footage or I'll beat your ass"? We had to go straight to trying to beat him up?

But I'm sure she's been doxxed, had death and rape threats sent, so now he'll be in the wrong because he videotaped her and now she's going to be the real victim.

I'd love to get one of these things, because they look fun as hell, but I wouldn't get one if I thought it'd lead to someone going all vigilante justice on me.

In this video, two British police officers come up to a young woman who is filming a building and harass her, imply that she is a terrorist, intimidate her, demand to see her footage.

davide405
—
2014-06-11T00:18:53Z —
#14

PSA: Please do not feed the trolls.

That is all

Punchcard
—
2014-06-11T00:30:34Z —
#16

Not obviously, because somewhere recently I saw evidence of an individual who misinterpreted their expectation of privacy, tried to call the cops and then ended up with an assault charge. Crap. Where was that?

Anyway, your concern trolling is boring. All that is missing is for you to throw in a "think of the children" and you will have hit all the high points.

teapot
—
2014-06-11T00:44:10Z —
#17

Beating is 'a little harsh'? Understatement of the day.

Even if the kid was perving, he is probably well within his rights to do so. If you don't want to be photographed wearing a bikini or tanning topless, don't do it in public.

robulus
—
2014-06-11T00:44:23Z —
#18

semiotix said:

vigilante fist justice is not necessarily the optimal solution here

"Vigilante fist justice" is, however, the optimal movie title of all time.